religious people don't care about truth

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Christianity, Truth
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In many cases, it is good that people are religious. Many people's lives are saved by coming to believe that there is a God that loves them, and stuff like that. Religion has caused wars and done harm, of course. But I see that it does lots of good for many people on a personal level. My mother, for example, would have struggled if she wasn't a Christian. She had a difficult childhood, but she's come off very well considering, and I think it's probably partly because she has faith in God and that gives her hope.

BUT, none of that means that any religious principles are actually true. Since I don't know about every religion that there is, I should probably be specific and just talk about Christianity. But what I am saying can be applied to other religions too.

To be a Christian, one needs to have faith that there is a God who loves them and who created the universe, and that an afterlife in heaven awaits them. And other things too. People don't come to believe these things based on evidence, or rationality, but they come to have faith in them. They believe these things despite the lack of any rational reason to believe in them. And I think they do this because those beliefs are very attractive.

It feels good to believe that there is a God watching over you and looking after you. But that doesn't mean it's true. I would feel good if I believed that I had got a 1st in my previous year at university. But it's not true. I got a 2:2.

Many people seem to find the belief that there is no God, and that the universe is a sort of accident, much less attractive, and I think that is why people have such a strong tendancy to be religious.

Basically, I don't think people are religious because it seems to be true that there is a God or an afterlife, etc. I think they are religious purely because they'd prefer those things to be true.

But what we want to be true isn't necessarily what is true. It's a bit like pop music. The albums that top the charts aren't necessarily the best ones. If the charts were based on some objective aesthetic standard by which to measure the goodness of an album, then they would look completely different.

If Christians were being objective about what is true, perhaps by looking at what scientific evidence points towards, they would have less conviction that there is a God that loves them.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 7,671 • Replies: 111

No top replies

Whatever, dude.

0 Replies

As a Buddhist I believe we are ressponsible for our own destinies. You got a 2.2 at University because you didn't study enough, for example. We are bound to the laws of causality. Our next life is determined by the causes we make in this life

0 Replies

agrote, I share your pain.

The problem is the psychological trap of religion.

The whole point of having faith is to accept the "real" truth that is deliberately hidden from you....objective proof is irrelevant. What would be the point of "faith" if faith was not required to believe (ie if a god was proven to exist and his book was scientifically proven true)?

So much reinforcement is then added to the mix....you get to give "love" which feels good, you get to receive love which also feels good, your are promised heaven and you get to look beyond death which feels really good. Then there's the stick....you may go to hell, you may be a bad person, you will be shunned by society, you are called arrogant and egotistical for daring to think you could know more than a god!

Objective truth seems like a pretty small sacrifice to make in the light of all that.

The worst trick of all : these days they are portraying objectivity (science) as a tool of the devil....something to guard your spirit against !!!

0 Replies

Hmm, well I think the whole point of faith is that there is a possibility for truth. I think we as humans want to know at least some truth, for example those that are essential.

0 Replies

I'm with Intrepid. Why do you even care about why anyone believes in God or not? I just love it when someone tries to tell me why I believe what I believe. No offense, but aren't you being rather presumptuous?

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Why do you even care about why anyone believes in God or not?

Some say "Why" and others say "Why not". I say
"Why not"! Laughing

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Hmm, well I think the whole point of faith is that there is a possibility for truth.

Without faith, there can be no hope. Who wants to be a hopeless fool?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Without faith, there can be no hope.

Bullshoot

Miller wrote:

Who wants to be a hopeless fool?

Nobody.

AM

How am I being presumptive? Which parts do you not agree with? There are many reasons for having faith in an imaginary being, but objective reality is not one of them.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

I'm with Intrepid. Why do you even care about why anyone believes in God or not? I just love it when someone tries to tell me why I believe what I believe. No offense, but aren't you being rather presumptuous?

As Miller said... Why not? I'm not entirely sure why I care about why anyone believes in God or not. But I do care.

I understand that plenty of religious people have no desire to bother me with their beliefs, or try to convert me, or anything like that - and it sounds like you're one of those people, which is good. Those people leave me alone, and I should probably leave them alone.

But some religious people present a threat to science - for example fundamentalist Christians in the USA who campaign against the teaching of Evolution as scientific fact. And I think this is because they care more about believing what they want to believe than believing what is actually true. Even though I am not religious, these issues are relevant to me because I do believe that science is an effective way of learning about objective truths in the world, and I don't want to see it being restricted by religion.

I don't really mean to challenge anyone's personal beliefs. I have every respect for people who find peace and purpose in believing in God. But I don't think that that religion has anything to do with truth. I might find peace and purpose believing that Elvis is still alive - but that doesn't mean that he is alive.

I think this is the fundamental difference between science and religion, since science attempts to be objective, and is constantly correcting itself and gaining an increasingly accurate picture of the world.

NickFun wrote:

As a Buddhist I believe we are ressponsible for our own destinies. You got a 2.2 at University because you didn't study enough, for example. We are bound to the laws of causality. Our next life is determined by the causes we make in this life

I agree that we are bound by causes, and I agree that I got a 2.2 because I didn't study hard enough.

But if we are bound by causes, how can we be responsible for our own destinies? Even if my destiny is determined by my own choices, if we are bound by causes then my choices are determined by causes that came before them - for example, the influence of my upbringing, or my genes. And those things are in turn determined by other causes. To really be responsible for your own destiny, you would have to be the original cause in the chain of causes leading to your choices. You would have to be God!

Anyway, this is completely off-topic

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Who wants to be a hopeless fool?

On the flip side... who wants foolish hope?

I must be the person who you would define as a hopeless fool. The "hopeless" part may be true, since I'm not religious and don't see any real/objective purpose in life. The "fool" part is correct as well (it's definitely true for every human being), although it's minimized to some extent for people who admit they don't really know the nature of the universe/reality...

I prefer truth to fairytales. If I don't know the truth/facts, I admit I don't know... and keep seeking...
If fairytales make someone feel better about themselves, they are certainly entitled to "have faith". It may be unreasonable since it's driven by pure Wishful Thinking, but it's still ok - humans are not perfect.
The sheer number of religious followers at this day and age (which would include most people in the world) shows that people are very susceptible to Wishful Thinking on a psychological level.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Miller wrote:
Who wants to be a hopeless fool?

On the flip side... who wants foolish hope?

I must be the person who you would define as a hopeless fool. The "hopeless" part may be true, since I'm not religious and don't see any real/objective purpose in life. The "fool" part is correct as well (it's definitely true for every human being), although it's minimized to some extent for people who admit they don't really know the nature of the universe/reality...

I prefer truth to fairytales. If I don't know the truth/facts, I admit I don't know... and keep seeking...
If fairytales make someone feel better about themselves, they are certainly entitled to "have faith". It may be unreasonable since it's driven by pure Wishful Thinking, but it's still ok - humans are not perfect.
The sheer number of religious followers at this day and age (which would include most people in the world) shows that people are very susceptible to Wishful Thinking on a psychological level.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. If people find comfort in religion, then good. But those people aren't searching for the truth. Which is also fine, by the way. Well, in many cases it is. Zealots and fundamentalists are another matter, but most of the liberal moderate Christian types that I know are perfectly happy and harmless (and unscientific).

0 Replies

Re: religious people don't care about truth

agrote wrote:

BUT, none of that means that any religious principles are actually true. Since I don't know about every religion that there is, I should probably be specific and just talk about Christianity. But what I am saying can be applied to other religions too.

Which religious principles have you tested and found not to be true?

agrote wrote:

To be a Christian, one needs to have faith that there is a God who loves them and who created the universe, and that an afterlife in heaven awaits them. And other things too. People don't come to believe these things based on evidence, or rationality, but they come to have faith in them. They believe these things despite the lack of any rational reason to believe in them. And I think they do this because those beliefs are very attractive.

If they have no eidence then they are just assuming. No one should follow something on mere assumption. Look at what trouble it currently put the world into. The Bible does not ask that you follow without evidence.

agrote wrote:

Basically, I don't think people are religious because it seems to be true that there is a God or an afterlife, etc. I think they are religious purely because they'd prefer those things to be true.

The same is true with those who want to believe that their is no God. Their religion prefers that that is not true.

agrote wrote:

But what we want to be true isn't necessarily what is true. It's a bit like pop music. The albums that top the charts aren't necessarily the best ones. If the charts were based on some objective aesthetic standard by which to measure the goodness of an album, then they would look completely different.

True

agrote wrote:

If Christians were being objective about what is true, perhaps by looking at what scientific evidence points towards, they would have less conviction that there is a God that loves them.

How can you read the evidence if you do not even understand what you are looking at. You can be presented with evidence that pertains to a crime but if you are not aware of that fact, how do you know that you are looking at evidence that pertains to a crime.

0 Replies

That there may be great advantage to those who would obfuscate the truth does not mean that God does not exist. In fact, it may mean quite the opposite.

0 Replies

Re: religious people don't care about truth

agrote wrote:

If Christians were being objective about what is true, perhaps by looking at what scientific evidence points towards, they would have less conviction that there is a God that loves them.

IMO science proves God, and disproves evoltion and every BS theory that goes with it.

0 Replies

Re: religious people don't care about truth

Scott777ab wrote:

IMO science proves God, and disproves evoltion and every BS theory that goes with it.

Science can't prove god or disprove god, no matter what your opinion. Supernatural concepts are simply not part of science.

And evolution, as a theory, is built on science. Science can not disprove it. Only evidence can disprove it, and so far, none has.

0 Replies

Re: religious people don't care about truth

Scott777ab wrote:

agrote wrote:

If Christians were being objective about what is true, perhaps by looking at what scientific evidence points towards, they would have less conviction that there is a God that loves them.

IMO science proves God, and disproves evoltion and every BS theory that goes with it.

It's not a matter of opinion. God either exists or doesn't, and evolution is either true or not true, whatever you believe.

And if you knew anything about science, you'd know that...

1) Science doesn't disprove anything. It's impossible to prove a negative, such as "evolution is false." Scientists develop theories, and attempt to gather evidence for those theories, and if they fail to gather a significant amount of evidence for a theory, that theory will be rejected, but it can never be proved false. Theories can't be proved true either, so you're wrong about proving God.

2) In the global scientific community, evolution is widely accepted as scientific fact. There is absolutely loads of evidence which supports the claims of evoilution, and very little evidence which contradicts the theory.

What makes you think science "proves God"?

I don't think you care about what science has to say. I think you are just believing what you want to believe. I don't think you should stop believing what you want to believe, but I don't see the point in pretending that you care about science and the search for objective truth. The only person you're fooling is yourself.

Mindonfire wrote:

Which religious principles have you tested and found not to be true?

I don't believe in God, in objective morality, in the soul, or in the afterlife. But it would take a while for me to explain why, and I think that would be a seperate thread.

In this thread, I'm not trying to assert that any religious principles are untrue. I'm just arguing that religious people don't really care if they are true - they'd believe them anyway, even if they were false.

Just forget what you and I believe about God for a moment, and imagine what the world would be like if God did not exist. I think most of the world would still be religious, and would still believe in God. That's what I'm trying to claim.

Quote:

If they have no evidence then they are just assuming. No one should follow something on mere assumption. Look at what trouble it currently put the world into. The Bible does not ask that you follow without evidence.

That's exactly what faith is though, isn't it? Belief despite the lack of evidence. I'm sure there is some evidence for what Christians believe, and I'm sure that if there was none at all, Christians would not believe what they believe. But one book, that has been translated many many many times, is not that much evidence. And what reasons do Christians have to believe the Bible and not the Qu'ran?

It baffles me that some fundamentalist Christians think this ancient book can compete with the mass of modern scientific support that there is for the theory of evolution.

Quote:

The same is true with those who want to believe that their is no God. Their religion prefers that that is not true.

Not believing in God is not a religion. And I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic, so although I don't believe in God, I don't claim to know that he doesn't exist. I think that if there is a God, scientists will find him, or a philosopher will provide an argument for his existence that cannot be refuted. But this hasn't happened yet, so I don't believe in God. I don't believe in life on Mars, but if we find life there I will immediately change my mind.

I'm not believing what I want to believe and ignoring evidence that contradicts what I want to believe (that is what Christians do). I am simply not commiting myself.

I admit that I don't know how the universe began, or how life began - that is more than Christians are able to admit.

Quote:

How can you read the evidence if you do not even understand what you are looking at. You can be presented with evidence that pertains to a crime but if you are not aware of that fact, how do you know that you are looking at evidence that pertains to a crime.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

0 Replies

Re: religious people don't care about truth

Scott777ab wrote:

agrote wrote:

If Christians were being objective about what is true, perhaps by looking at what scientific evidence points towards, they would have less conviction that there is a God that loves them.

IMO science proves God, and disproves evoltion and every BS theory that goes with it.

I thought you didn't believe in God, Scott,

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

In this thread, I'm not trying to assert that any religious principles are untrue. I'm just arguing that religious people don't really care if they are true - they'd believe them anyway, even if they were false.

Just forget what you and I believe about God for a moment, and imagine what the world would be like if God did not exist. I think most of the world would still be religious, and would still believe in God. That's what I'm trying to claim.

Most people who are religious have a hard time understanding who God is. God is supreme reality. Therefore if God does not exist then you would not exist. If reality does not exist then you would not exist.

agrote wrote:

That's exactly what faith is though, isn't it? Belief despite the lack of evidence. I'm sure there is some evidence for what Christians believe, and I'm sure that if there was none at all, Christians would not believe what they believe. But one book, that has been translated many many many times, is not that much evidence. And what reasons do Christians have to believe the Bible and not the Qu'ran?

This is what they who are ignorant have made all faith to be. There are two types of faith. There is the belief which One may have without concrete evidence. And then there is the faith that is based on concrete Evidence. Let us look at the definition of "faith"

Definition Merriam Webster
Faith: (n) 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*
synonyms see BELIEF

As you may see from the definition, faith also means belief and trust in God. Well if you are going to believe and trust someone with $1 million, then common sense dictates that you should at least have evidence of that individuals character. The same is true with God. If you are going to trust your whole life to him then common sense would dictate that you should have evidence that first, there is a God and secondly, that he is a being of a trustworthy nature. Therefore, though a lot of people advocate blind faith, the Bible does not. God realises evidence is the key to faith that is why he tells those who follow to weigh the evidence before they follow.

Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

agrote wrote:

It baffles me that some fundamentalist Christians think this ancient book can compete with the mass of modern scientific support that there is for the theory of evolution.

Once again you are dealing with the ignorant masses who are superficial in their understanding of the Bible. The Bible does not contradict or deny evolution. The people who interpret it contradict and deny evolution.

agrote wrote:

Not believing in God is not a religion. And I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic, so although I don't believe in God, I don't claim to know that he doesn't exist. I think that if there is a God, scientists will find him, or a philosopher will provide an argument for his existence that cannot be refuted. But this hasn't happened yet, so I don't believe in God. I don't believe in life on Mars, but if we find life there I will immediately change my mind.

Not believing in a God is a form or religion. Here is the definition of religion

Religion: (n) 1 a : the state of a religious *a nun in her 20th year of religion* b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Whatever your personal system of beliefs or practices consist of, becomes your religion. Therefore whatever you faithfully hold to be true becomes your religion. This means that even though atheists do not want to admit it; they are religious.

agrote wrote:

I'm not believing what I want to believe and ignoring evidence that contradicts what I want to believe (that is what Christians do). I am simply not commiting myself.

And if you don't feel that you have seen sufficient evidence, you shouldn't. Only a fool would commit their life to something on gossip alone. Look at the trouble that has gotten a particular country into.

agrote wrote:

I admit that I don't know how the universe began, or how life began - that is more than Christians are able to admit.

Science and the Bible do a great job of telling you

agrote wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/quote="Mindonfire"] How can you read the evidence if you do not even understand what you are looking at. You can be presented with evidence that pertains to a crime but if you are not aware of that fact, how do you know that you are looking at evidence that pertains to a crime. [/quote]

This means that you can have all the evidence in the world, but if you do not know what that evidence points to then you still know nothing. A detective who is at a crime seen may have all the evidence in front of him, but if he does not know how to decipher the evidence then he still has nothing. Therefore, you can have the evidence that there is a God in your face, but if you do not know how to interpret that evidence then it is useless. In short, you have to know and understand what you are looking at.

0 Replies

agrote

I feel your opening description of the personal comforts provided by religion is valid, but NOT your title !

Quote:

religious people don't care about truth

On the contrary, religious people tend to have a vested interest in "the Truth" with a capital T. This generally means their version of the truth which supercedes all others ....and hence you have the seeds of eternal conflict.

The point is, as scientists know well that "truth" is always relative and "in flux". Even the so called "real world of physical objects" has covert assumptions built into it about the nature of ourselves as observers.

However irrespective of the often misunderstood philosophical or scientific status of the word "truth" the de facto situation regarding religion is well summed up by Pontias Pilote's famous response "What is truth ?" to Jesus' "I am the truth".

0 Replies

religious people don't care about truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know